Thanks Matthew, leading on from that then, what if I facilitate that lost clickability in a usability test, does it become some sort of prototype again?
Where is the line drawn? Yes, this is a pointless theoretical semantic nomenclature debate, I guess what I'm getting at is that a 'document' should be defined by its audience not the tools used to create it. Its a huge 'it depends' on the context situation but in my mind its superbly fruitless to base definitions on construction. Its all about the use. A car made of wood is still a car http://www.tomstrongman.com/ClassicCars/JerryNickel/Index.htm A house made of candy, is still a house http://www.willcotton.com/paintingscans/candyhousezm.jpg etc etc... On Nov 8, 2007 8:47 PM, Matthew Nish-Lapidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To answer the question (even though it was posed to Andrei :) ... > > I would say no, ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
